EVOLUTION OR REVOLUTION?
THE EVOLUTION THAT NON-BELIEVERS BELIEVE IN
Are most Muslims opposed to the theory of evolution? Do we see it as contradictory to faith in God?
The only global research I have come across is a 2008–2012 Pew Research Center survey conducted across 22 countries with Muslim populations. On average, 53% of Muslims stated that they believe humanity came into existence through evolution over time. In comparison, 46% of Christians in the U.S. expressed belief in evolution.
These results suggest that, for many Muslims, faith in God and belief in evolution coexist, he says. Yet it remains an undeniable fact that the subject of evolution continues to stir the greatest debate on the relationship between science and religion, not only among Muslims, but also among Jews and Christians.
After all, in all three Abrahamic faiths, there is no interpretation other than the belief that species, including humankind, have existed in their present form since the very beginning.
In Islam, our belief rests on what God has revealed to us. We accept the knowledge of the unseen (the unknown), conveyed through divine revelation in the Qur’an, without expecting proof. Those who object, who do not accept this knowledge, are considered unbelievers or to have flawed or mistaken beliefs. And of course, there is no compulsion in religion.
But what exactly do evolutionists believe?
The essence of the evolutionary view is described as the conviction that not only humanity, but the entire universe—everything living and non-living—has evolved by chance, on its own, without the need for a Creator. Actually, such a description conveniently serves the interests of non-believers, for it leaves them with no other foundation for their disbelief!
Believers, on the other hand, show fierce opposition to the theory of evolution in response to these claims. Non-believers, or the ignorant and unaware who invoke the theory of evolution, claim that the mechanisms they advance and seek to impose—mutation, adaptation, and natural selection—are the laws of nature: blind, mindless, and unconscious forces, randomly combined to produce the entire universe and everything in it. But such an explanation is a dogma, and since it is not grounded in divine faith, it requires scientific proof. Could it be proven?
Our esteemed prof. dr. Sefa Saygılı is a man of faith who rejects evolution. Reading his book Evrimin Tutarsızlığı (The Inconsistencies of Evolution) led me to reflect on his views and compare them with the perspectives of both Turkish and foreign scholars. In my article, I also draw from the works of prof. dr. Caner Taslaman, dr. Ergi Deniz Özsoy, prof. dr. Sinan Canan, prof. dr. Eric L. Peterson, dr. John Gribbin and dr. Mary Gribbin, prof. dr. Ömer Türker, prof. dr. Eva Jablonka, prof. pr. Mustafa Öztürk and Alper Bilgili, examining how different scientists approach the subject.
In selecting references, I sought to highlight sources that collectively summarize the wide spectrum of views expressed globally over the years on evolution, science, and faith.
Note: Originally published on August 3,2025.
Our esteemed prof. dr. Sefa Saygılı is a man of faith who rejects evolution. Reading his book Evrimin Tutarsızlığı (1)—a compilation of his writings on the subject from different periods—led me to briefly share his views:
prof. dr. Sefa Saygılı writes: “That a theory as vague, poorly evidenced, and distant from scientific criteria as the theory of evolution has become dogma can only be explained by sociological reasons. Society and science had become so immersed in mechanistic, utilitarian, and free market thinking that, in place of God in the heavens, natural selection was elevated as reality.” He continues: “Yet, if evolutionists truly believe in positive science, this theory should have been proven long ago. Is evolution now a belief system? Is unproven belief in evolution not science, but an obsession? Or is it merely the guise of atheism?”
The book presents numerous arguments demonstrating the inconsistencies and contradictions of the theory of evolution, explaining why it has failed to be convincing or reasonable. It also incorporates writings that Professor Saygılı has produced over the years on what he calls the dead ends of evolutionists, some of them accompanied by their original publication dates. Let me begin with some brief excerpts of his perspective:
The Beginning of the Universe: The Big Bang
In the twentieth century, scientific findings revealed that the universe is not immutable, eternal, and infinite—a devastating blow to materialist minds. In his book A Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking wrote: “If the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in 100 thousand million million, the universe would have collapsed before it ever reached its present size.”
The Astonishing Balance of the Cosmos
It was only in the late 1940s that scientists discovered the universe is not eternal, but rather came into being through an event we now call the Big Bang. Over time, this view became widely accepted within the scientific community, though it has never been definitively proven.
The Moon and the Wisdom of Creation
If the Moon did not exist, our atmosphere would be hundreds of times denser, sunlight would fail to reach the Earth’s surface, photosynthesis could not occur, and life would not exist. The Moon’s gravitational pull thins our atmosphere, almost like stretching out cotton candy.
In short, without the Moon, the Earth would rotate at a much higher speed than it does now. This would produce violent surface winds and shorten the length of days.
As a result, had the magnificence and perfection of creation—even as much as we can grasp—not been established, life on Earth as we know it would not exist. Neither humanity nor any living beings would be here today. As our noble Book, the Qur’an, states:
“He causes the dawn to break and has made the night for rest and ˹made˺ the sun and the moon ˹to travel˺ with precision. That is the design of the Almighty, All-Knowing.”
(Surah Al-An‘am, 96)
“And He made the moon therein a light and made the sun a burning lamp.”
(Surah Nuh, 16)
“It is He who created the night and the day and the sun and the moon; all [heavenly bodies] in an orbit are swimming.
(Surah Al-Anbiya, 33)
“And He subjected for you the sun and the moon, continuous [in orbit], and subjected for you the night and the day.”
(Surah Ibrahim, 33)
“And He has subjected for you the night and day and the sun and moon, and the stars are subjected by His command. Indeed, in that are signs for a people who reason.”
(Surah An-Nahl, 12)
The Giant Planet Protecting Our Earth: Jupiter
Rebecca Martin, a member of NASA’s Sagan Academy, observed: “Our study shows that only a tiny fraction of planetary systems observed to date seem to have giant planets in the right location to produce an asteroid belt of the appropriate size, offering the potential for life on a nearby rocky planet. Our study suggests that our solar system may be rather special.”
Are Bacteria Primitive?
Michael Denton defines complexity as follows: “Molecular biology has shown that even the simplest of all living systems on the earth today, bacterial cells, are exceedingly complex objects. Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 gms, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machine built by man and absolutely without parallel in the nonliving world.”
When it comes to the wealth of information within the cell, the well-known atheist scholar Richard Dawkins (1986) once remarked: “Each cell contains a digitally coded database larger, in information content, than all 30 volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica put together.” Moreover, this information is correctly encoded in DNA sequences. Even a simple bacterium possesses around 4,000 different types of proteins. Bacteria are the fastest-reproducing organisms and make up about 75% of all life forms. They produce more mutations than any other life form. Yet, despite this, they have never produced anything other than bacteria. For three billion years, they have remained just that—bacteria.
In summary, Darwin’s claims and Darwinism, from the day they were first proposed until today, have remained nothing more than a personal hypothesis, never scientifically proven by any discipline based on empirical data, findings, or evidence. On the contrary, countless scientific facts and discoveries directly refute them. In such circumstances, it would be a highly accurate, well-founded, and scientifically valid approach to treat Darwin’s ideas as null, dismissing them in favor of correct and true theories and/or laws that are truly substantiated by objective scientific evidence.
On January 28, 2017, Saygılı wrote the following: “In a secular state, including such nonsense—an ideology of denial and an enemy of faith—in the curriculum as though it were science was completely wrong. It constituted a violation of freedom of religion and conscience. The Ministry of National Education has now made a highly appropriate decision by removing this unnecessary and anti-scientific subject from the curriculum. We extend our thanks to all who contributed.”
Aziz Sancar and the Theory of Evolution
At a program held at the Turkish Embassy in Baku, prof. dr. Aziz Sancar responded to a student’s question on the relationship between religion and science as follows: “I am a Muslim, and I declare it everywhere. I take pride in my faith. The debates in Turkey over evolution have deeply saddened me, as our country faces many other pressing issues.
I believe in God. Some may believe in evolution, others may not. But elevating this into a national or political problem and fighting over it wastes all our energy.”
Are Humans Merely Close to Apes?
Evolutionists often point to similarities in DNA sequences. They argue that 97% of our genes are shared with apes. Yet, for comparison, humans share 90% of their genes with mice and about 50% with bananas. In other words, genetic similarity alone is not a decisive criterion.
On this point, geneticist Steve Jones issues an important reminder: “A chimpanzee’s DNA may be 97% similar to ours, but that does not make it 97% human. It is, of course, not a human but a chimpanzee. Does the fact that humans share genes with a mouse or a banana truly define what we are? Some claim genes can tell us exactly who we are. This view is utterly illogical.”
Were Pygmies Creatures Between Apes and Humans?
Charles Darwin, the father of the theory of evolution, went so far as to describe Turks as an inferior race that had not yet completed its development. In a letter dated July 3, 1881, to the scientist W. Graham, Darwin wrote: “The Turks are specimens of mankind who are not real men. For the survival of our civilization, we must drive them back to the Asian steppes whence they came or annihilate them in Anatolia.” Such words, of course, reveal him to be a prejudiced and vulgar racist. However, as Alper Bilgili’s book later demonstrates, this claim is unfounded. Darwin, in fact, did not hold a racist perspective specifically targeting Turks.
DNA and Mutations
Almost all mutations are harmful and, in most cases, lethal to living organisms. Even the rare mutations that are not directly harmful have never proven beneficial; at best, they are neutral. Scientists, after studying countless mutations, have concluded that not a single one has ever clearly improved the life process of an organism. In short, mutations cannot produce new species. And yet, ironically, it was precisely mutations that brought an end to the COVID pandemic. We are aware of this, aren’t we?
Reflections from Göbeklitepe
The archaeological excavations at Göbeklitepe have taught us much, overturning certain long-held assumptions.
The prevailing claim was this: “Twelve thousand years ago, humankind did not know how to build shelters, had not domesticated animals, had not begun agriculture, and therefore had not yet transitioned to a settled life. They lived primitively, as hunters.”
Yet when we examine the artifacts they built, we see that the people of that era possessed abstract intelligence and a refined sense of aesthetics.
How Stone Age humans advanced so far in architecture as to build temples and even cities, structures that would be difficult to construct even today, and how they learned the art of working stone to produce exquisitely beautiful patterns, remains unexplained. Naturally, for them to have possessed such knowledge, they must already have been living in organized communities, bound by social contracts and division of labor. This, in turn, points to Creation.
Göbeklitepe has revealed findings that compel us to rewrite not only human history but particularly the history of religions. Old theories have been upended. We can now confidently state that the foundation of civilization was not simply agriculture after hunting and gathering, but rather faith and belief.
What Is the Function of the Appendix?
Darwinists have long repeated the claim: “The appendix, in our primate ancestors, was larger because they consumed more plants. As humans transitioned to a meat-based diet, evolution rendered it a useless organ, with no function for humans. In short, it is vestigial.”
Is the Appendix Useless?
Contrary to these Darwinist claims, recent years have shown that the appendix serves valuable functions. A study conducted by William Parker and R. Randall Bollinger at Duke University demonstrated that the appendix provides a kind of haven for microbes that facilitate digestion.
Animals and humans with appendices were observed to have higher concentrations of lymphoid tissue in their intestines. This tissue stimulates the growth of beneficial bacteria, which can then be stored in the appendix. Thus, it was once thought that in the event of diarrhea, the organism would not lose all of its beneficial gut bacteria, but this has proven not to be the case.
Clearly, prof. dr. Sefa Saygılı does not present the theory of evolution as a scientific model but rather as a tool devised by modern materialist ideology to undermine religious values. In his view, evolution is an entire belief system, one that excludes the Creator and rests solely on chance and unconscious natural forces. In this sense, evolution is not just harmful to biology but also to morality, society, and humanity’s search for meaning.
Saygılı draws his examples largely from the order and complexity of nature—the Moon’s effect on Earth’s rotation, the intricacies of bacterial cells, the protective role of Jupiter—arguing that the universe is too finely tuned to be a product of chance. All these arguments support the concept of “intelligent design.”
At the same time, Saygılı’s approach has drawn criticism for overlooking the methodology of science. The Theory of Evolution today lies at the very heart of modern biology, continuously tested and refined through observation, experimentation, and the vast amount of data provided by fossil records. Presenting evolution as a conspiracy against religion reduces science and represents an attitude opposed to scientific pluralism. While Saygılı’s stance may be justified in certain respects, it overlooks the rich diversity of interpretations within Islamic thought and instead adopts a literalist and reactionary position.
prof. dr. Mustafa Öztürk, however, offers a different perspective in his book Kur’an ve Yaratılış (2). According to him, the Qur’an, as divine revelation, was expressed in accordance with the language, culture, and knowledge codes of 7th-century Arab society. Therefore, the central approach of his work is to interpret the verses in light of their “original intent”. In this context, verses that touch upon evolution should also be understood within the cosmology and ontology of that era.
Don’t rush to object; don’t be hasty. Let’s first review the arguments.
In his book, Öztürk systematically examines Qur’anic references to creation, such as “creation in six days,” “the seven heavens,” angels, jinn, the creation of Adam, and the origins of humankind. He aims to demonstrate that these expressions should be viewed not through the lens of modern scientific knowledge, but rather through the narrative structures and pedagogical aims of their own time.
Among the themes he highlights is Bezm-i Elest (Covenant of Alast), that is, the fitrah covenant between God (Exalted is He) and the individual. He warns that the desire to impose modern scientific theories, such as an “evolutionary process” onto these accounts risks overshadowing their true meaning.
In the section most relevant to us, titled “Creation and Evolution,” Öztürk argues that there is no verse in the Qur’an that explicitly supports or rejects evolution. As he writes: “The Qur’an is neither a document that forbids evolution nor a scientific text that directly explains it.” He also rejects the “scientific miracle” approach common in modern interpretations.
In summary, Öztürk maintains that the Qur’an, as a religious text, provides metaphysical, moral, and spiritual guidance; it does not offer contemporary scientific answers to how creation occurred. Science is ever advancing, while the verses are situated within the discourse of their own era and are best understood through metaphorical interpretation. Accordingly, claims that the Qur’an either proves or disproves evolution are scientifically meaningless. Drawing the Qur’an into scientific disputes is narrow-minded, if not ignorant.
Öztürk emphasizes that the Qur’an’s primary purpose is not to provide a scientific explanation, but to call humanity to responsibility and moral maturity. Expressions such as “creation of man from clay” or “creation of man from a drop of fluid” are open to metaphorical or symbolic interpretation. In this sense, they do not contradict the scientific processes valid in daily life. Öztürk proposes to build a constructive relationship between the Qur’an and science by moving away from literal readings and instead considering the deeper layers of meaning. His final suggestion is what he calls theological agnosticism: “…It is clear in the theology of religions that living beings were created and designed by God’s power and knowledge. But which path God chose to follow in this act of creation and design cannot be understood with our current knowledge.”
Our next reference is prof. dr. Caner Taslaman’s book Can a Muslim Be an Evolutionist? (3). In my view, it represents a comprehensive attempt to reconcile evolution with Islam. Taslaman argues that evolution is supported by strong scientific evidence, and therefore, rejecting it outright is not rational. To him, the Qur’anic accounts of creation do not necessarily imply instantaneous creation. For example, the expression “He created you in stages” in Surah Nuh, verse 14, can be interpreted as evolutionary creation:
“There is no reason to assume that God’s command ‘Be!’ must always mean immediate, earthly existence. The universe is 13.8 billion years old, yet this too is encompassed by God’s ‘Be!’.”
Taslaman views the laws of nature as a system established by God, in which the evolutionary process is included. He interprets chance not as a realm outside God’s will, but rather as one of His methods of creation. Evolution, therefore, can be an instrument of divine power.
In his book, Taslaman criticizes the equation of evolution with atheism and denounces atheists who instrumentalize science for propaganda. He notes that many scientists who accept evolution are themselves believers, stressing that efforts to turn evolution into an ideological weapon are unscientific. Darwin’s ideas, he argues, were gradually transformed into a tool of ideological atheism, overshadowing their scientific content. For this reason, Taslaman calls for a reassessment of evolution on both scientific and theological grounds, urging the Muslim world to adopt a more constructive stance. He adds that literalist readings, which disregard textual context and linguistic richness, only constrain the Qur’an’s capacity to engage with science. His conclusion is straightforward: “There is nothing in the Qur’an that contradicts the theory of evolution. A Muslim can be an evolutionist. But this does not mean that every Muslim must be one, because no verse in the Qur’an makes belief in this theory compulsory.”
The next book, or rather selected chapters from it, is prof. dr. Sinan Canan’s Kimsenin Bilemeyeceği Şeyler (4). In this work, Canan devotes seven chapters to science, religion, and evolution. His perspective on evolution is more flexible and analytical. While recognizing the scientific value of evolutionary biology, he argues that presenting it in opposition to religion is unnecessary. To Canan, evolution is a natural law that explains biodiversity and adaptation. Accordingly, it can be regarded as one of God’s modes of creation. Presenting evolution purely as a materialist explanation, he argues, is itself a form of dogmatism that oversteps the boundaries of the scientific method.
Canan is equally opposed to the use of evolutionary theory as a direct propaganda tool of positivist materialism. Despite the significant evidence contained in the theory, he stresses that its conclusions are not necessarily scientific, and that any such claim, whoever makes it, lacks a solid scientific basis.
One of Canan’s most important contributions is his emphasis on the idea that science and faith represent different forms of knowledge. Drawing also from his personal experiences, he advocates evaluating both within their respective boundaries. This, he argues, should not be seen as a conflict between science and faith, but as an opportunity for cooperation. For Muslim intellectuals today, one of the most fundamental challenges is not merely how to preserve faith in the face of scientific developments, but how to interpret those developments through the lens of faith. Rather than viewing scientific theories as direct threats to belief, it is more productive and meaningful to understand them as reflections of God’s methods of creation. After all, science is limited by the capacities of God’s knowledgeable servants.
In essence, Canan paraphrases it this way: When discussing why we lag in science and technology, people often cherry-pick outdated statements and present them as if they represented true Islam, arguing that the solution is to abandon religion. At other times, the opposite occurs: empty, pompous rhetoric about faith that turns its back on science. Such people defend religion, unaware of their own ignorance in the face of what God has created… On evolution, Canan is clear: “Evolution exists. But this process, the true story of creation, does not have to match Darwin’s theory exactly. We still do not know how it happened. We have no explanation for how the first cell emerged. Science has nothing to say on this matter. But the same is true for the law of gravity. We still do not know why objects attract one another in space, yet we can observe that they do. Not knowing the cause does not justify denying its existence. Therefore, in a world where living beings resemble one another so closely, it is not reasonable to deny common creation simply because we do not yet know the mechanism.”
For my part, I maintain that accepting or rejecting evolution, or any similar theory, is a matter of scientific detail, so long as it does not hinder one’s acceptance and belief in God’s names and attributes.
When asked what evidence from the Qur’an supports evolution, Sinan Canan responds: “No evidence for scientific matters should be sought from the Qur’an… If you abandon the Qur’an’s clear command to pursue knowledge and seek understanding of the universe, and instead try to find such details in the Qur’an, you contradict its core message.”
prof. dr. Ömer Türker’s book Evrim Risalesi (5) examines the theory of evolution through a philosophical grounding within the tradition of Islamic thought. Türker treats evolution not as a scientific datum but as a “mode of understanding,” and explores how this framework might be reconciled within the theological, philosophical, and mystical heritage of Islam. In his view, although the theory of evolution developed within a positivist scientific framework in the West, this does not mean it is wholly incompatible with Islamic thought. On the contrary, the Islamic tradition offers rich theoretical resources for understanding nature as a process suffused with divine wisdom.
Türker does not adopt a stance of directly accepting or rejecting the theory of evolution, nor does he engage in biological debates. Instead, he invites the reader on an intellectual journey, seeking to uncover the theological grounds that could make evolution conceivable, yet he does not assert that these grounds correspond exactly to the modern scientific theory of evolution. The book’s distinctive contribution lies in posing the question of how evolutionary processes may be approached through the notions of nature, causality, and divine wisdom in the thought of Ibn Sina, Ibn al-‘Arabi, and al-Farabi. As he writes: “…To assume that the process of creation is purposeless is, in fact, to deny man himself… Denying a knowing and acting Absolute Agent contradicts all our knowledge of things and, viewed through the sensibilities of metaphysical thinkers, is quite literally the bankruptcy of reason. Therefore, assuming that an Absolute Agent has no prior knowledge of the diversification of life may be excusable, as noted above, in the sense of not positing such knowledge as an objective to be attained in biological research; however, it cannot be accepted as a form of negative metaphysics. For precisely this reason, turning the negative assumptions that mark the scientific limits of biological inquiry into a buttress for a negative metaphysics is to misuse evolution as an explanatory theory and to make it a Trojan horse for atheism. Surely, biologists would not be willing to be magicians who conjure a godless genie from the bottle of life.”
prof. dr. Ergi Deniz Özsoy, in his book Evrim, Bilim ve Tarih: Bu Yaşam Görüşünde İhtişam Var (6), approaches evolutionary biology not only as a scientific theory but also as a historical and cultural worldview. He defines scientific knowledge as a cumulative construct shaped by historical processes and evaluates the theory of evolution not as strict positivism but as a multi-layered intellectual framework.
Particularly highlighting early biological observations in the Islamic intellectual tradition, Özsoy draws attention to the 9th-century Afro-Arab scholar and polymath al-Jahiz of Basra. He identifies al-Jahiz’s observations on adaptation, the struggle for existence, and diversity in his Book of Animals as early precursors of evolutionary thought. However, Özsoy stresses that these should not be seen as direct antecedents of the theory of evolution, but rather as cultural and intellectual foundations that predated modern evolutionary biology. In this sense, he argues that evolutionary thought is not exclusively a Western scientific revolution, but also part of a long, observation-based intellectual process in the East.
By this approach, Özsoy lifts the theory of evolution out of the narrow frame of science-versus-religion conflict, presenting it instead as a layered cultural field of knowledge. He warns that religious critiques lacking an understanding of scientific methodology are misleading and frames his worldview with the principle: “The boundary between science and dogma must be drawn as sharply as possible.”
Published in Turkish by Boğaziçi University Press (originally an MIT Press publication), Eva Jablonka and Marion J. Lamb’s Evrimin Dört Boyutu: Yaşam tarihinde Genetik, Epigenetik, Davranışsal ve Simgesel Değişimler (7) takes an impartial view of the theory of evolution in its post-Darwin broadened scope.
The book first traces the development of evolutionary theory since Charles Darwin, focusing particularly on the “modern synthesis” of the 20th century, which integrated natural selection, mutation, and genetic transmission. Yet the authors critique this model for failing to adequately account for factors such as organism behavior, environmental influence, and cultural transmission, arguing that such critiques have paved the way for new paradigms within evolutionary biology.
According to the authors, DNA-level genetic changes alone are insufficient to account for evolutionary change. Instead, they propose four distinct inheritance systems:
- Genetic Dimension: Changes in DNA sequences (mutations) transmitted across generations, in line with classical Darwinian understanding.
- Epigenetic Dimension: Traits passed on through chemical modifications that affect gene expression without altering DNA sequences (e.g., methylation).
- Behavioral Dimension: The transmission of learned behaviors and responses to the environment through social mechanisms.
- Symbolic Dimension: The uniquely human transmission of knowledge via language, culture, and symbolic systems.
The authors argue that these four dimensions complement one another in explaining how organisms respond to their environments and how such responses can become embedded in evolutionary inheritance. This model frees evolutionary theory from genetic determinism and offers a more comprehensive picture of biological reality. Epigenetics and cultural transmission, in particular, highlight how species can respond to environmental changes more quickly and dynamically. The book thus presents evolution after Darwin as a field undergoing paradigmatic shifts.
Despite this methodological broadening, Evrimin Dört Boyutu avoids direct theological discussions. It makes no reference to God or divine creation. Instead, its purpose is to expand evolutionary theory within the bounds of science, steering clear of metaphysical positions such as atheism or theism.
The impartial stance of Jablonka and Lamb renders their work an important scientific reference, stripped of ideological biases. The authors regard scientists’ efforts as an attempt to better understand the nature of evolution and situate it within broader biological, psychological, and sociological contexts. Thus, the book can be regarded as a key reference for any intellectual who seeks to draw a healthy boundary between science and faith, and to respect that boundary.
John Gribbin and Mary Gribbin’s Evrimin Kökenleri (8) demonstrates that evolution is not merely a biological theory but also an evolving intellectual paradigm. The book presents evolutionary biology free from ideological disputes, offering a clear and systematic account of its scientific development and its historical continuity.
The Gribbins trace the trajectory of evolutionary thought from Aristotle’s idea of the scala naturae, to Carl Linnaeus’ classifications, Buffon’s ideas on species variability, Lamarck’s proposals of gradual change, and finally to Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection. This historical survey shows that the theory of evolution did not emerge suddenly but was shaped through a layered accumulation of intellectual contributions.
Most notably, the Gribbins present evolution not as an atheistic ideology but as a scientific explanatory model. They deliberately avoid framing evolution in direct conflict with belief in God, steering clear of metaphysical debates that exceed the boundaries of science. In this way, the book neither attacks nor defends systems of faith. Rather, it stresses that Darwin’s ideas should be understood in their proper historical context, and that aberrant ideological uses—such as social Darwinism, racism, and eugenics—have no direct connection with Darwin’s scientific project.
At this very point, it is worth considering Alper Bilgili’s Darwin ve Osmanlılar (9). As mentioned earlier, Bilgili makes an important contribution to understanding the historical and cultural background of evolution debates in Turkey. His book critically examines how Darwin’s theory was interpreted in the Ottoman Empire, how Turkish intellectuals read the science–religion conflict in the West, and how many of the statements attributed to Darwin have been misused or taken out of context.
According to Bilgili, Ottoman intellectuals did not perceive Darwin’s theory as an inherently anti-religious discourse. On the contrary, many regarded it as a natural law compatible with religious belief. For instance, İsmail Fennî Ertuğrul did not reject Darwin outright but questioned certain aspects of the theory from philosophical and metaphysical perspectives. Perhaps, it may be regarded as an early example of the historical approaches that laid the groundwork for believers’ acceptance of evolutionary models, a line reflected today by scholars such as Caner Taslaman.
One of Bilgili’s most important contributions is dispelling the notion that Darwin harbored a racist view against Ottomans. The book finds no historical or textual basis for the oft-repeated claim that Darwin described Turks as “nonhuman specimens” in his letter to William Graham. Bilgili demonstrates that Darwin’s letter did not concern the Ottomans but referred instead to Eastern powers that had threatened Europe in the 16th century—a context that has often been distorted.
I can already hear your question: So, who were these people, and why were they mentioned in a scientist’s letter? Was Darwin history’s first trolling tweeter?
Bilgili’s historical analysis evaluates the Ottoman reception of evolution not only in religious terms but also in sociological and cultural dimensions. This resonates with Ömer Türker’s approach, which, drawing on the intellectual tradition, regards evolution at the metaphysical level as a “mode of understanding”.
In conclusion, Alper Bilgili frames the debate as a critique of reactionary tendencies that shift the discussion away from scientific content toward cultural and historical ground. Doesn’t this approach parallel Sinan Canan’s argument that science and faith are two distinct epistemological domains, not adversarial but complementary?
Finally, we come to Erik L. Peterson’s Charles Darwin’i Anlamak (10)—a critical and historical biography that reopens the study of evolution’s origins. Peterson presents Darwin not only as a natural scientist but also as a thinker shaped by the religious, political, and intellectual context of the 19th century. In this light, the book seeks to portray Darwin’s theory as one that, beyond scientific data, engages cultural, psychological, and metaphysical dimensions.
According to Peterson, Darwin included not only biological species but also the human mind, morality, and belief systems within his intellectual scope. On this basis, Peterson argues that Darwin was not an outright atheist; rather, he wrestled with a personal dilemma about God’s existence while developing the idea of evolution.
Peterson also examines how the theory of evolution was ideologically instrumentalized throughout the 20th century, emphasizing that social Darwinism, eugenics, positivist science, and modern atheism are distortions of Darwin’s original ideas. In this respect, the book analyzes Darwin both as a theorist and as a figure who was later mythologized and misappropriated. Peterson adopts a balanced position: one that remains faithful to scientific truth while guarding it from ideological distortions.
As you can see, the debate is still far from settled. After reading so much on the theory of evolution, could we really reduce the entire matter to the shallow cliché of “we came from monkeys”? Or what should we say to those who do? In my view, such arguments are not even worth engaging.
To support, oppose, or remain neutral, one must first understand. This writing alone has broadened my repertoire for discussion. Though I’m a believer, it’s important to grasp the issues first—especially if you’re planning to share your view with others.
Some argue, “If evolution exists, then God does not.” Others counter, “If God exists, then evolution does not.” Still others attempt to reconcile the two. This dilemma arises when the issue is viewed solely through the lens of science or solely through the lens of faith. But if we believe and then learn, such a dilemma disappears. As the Qur’an asks: “Say, ‘Are those who know equal to those who do not know?’…”
As Sinan Canan observes, “We have no explanation for how the first cell emerged. Science has nothing to say on this matter…” Scientists themselves acknowledge that research attempting to speculate about millions of years past will remain theories at best, leading only to endless debates. Ultimately, how we discuss this impartially is left to the integrity of scientists and to all of us.
My own conviction is this: have faith first, for faith does not require proof. Evolution should not be seen as a denial of God (Exalted is He). On the contrary, the evolutionary process may offer us clues to better grasp the magnificence of creation itself. If we approach it not ideologically but with open-mindedness and humble curiosity, both science and humanity stand to gain.
References
1) Saygılı, S. (2020). Tasarımın İhtişamı. Evrimin Tutarsızlığı, Çıra yayınları, 206 pp.
2) Öztürk, M. (2017), Kur’an ve Yaratılış, Kuramer, 3rd Edition, 264 pp.
3) Taslaman, C. (2017). Bir Müslüman Evrimci Olabilir Mi?, Destek yayınları, 175 pp.
4) Canan, S. (2020). Kimsenin Bilemeyeceği Şeyler, Tuti Kitap, 16th Edition, 284 pp.
5) Türker, Ö. (2018). Evrim Risalesi, Ketebe, 2nd Edition, 148 pp.
6) Özsoy, E.D. (2022), Evrim, Bilim, Tarih: bu yaşam görüşünde ihtişam var, Ginko Bilim, 112 pp.
7) Jablonka, E., & Lamb, M.J. (2018). Evrimin Dört Boyutu: Yaşam tarihinde Genetik, Epigenetik, Davranışsal ve Simgesel Değişimler, Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Yayınları, 588 pp.
8) Gribbin, J., & Gribbin, M. (2022). Evrimin Kökeni: Aristo’dan DNA’ya “Darwin’in Tehlikeli Fikri’nin Peşinde, Alfa Bilim, 279 pp.
9) Bilgili A. (2018). Darwin ve Osmanlılar, Vadi yayınları, 263 pp.
10) Peterson E. (2024). Charles Darwin’i anlamak. Koç Üniversitesi yayınları, 263 pp.
11) Darwin, C. (2024). Türlerin kökeni. 23rd Edition, Alfa Bilim, 472 pp.
Note: This open-source article does not require copyright and can be quoted by citing the author.
